I join the CTV NewsChanel to talk about the return of the king in “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert,” the dark comedy “How to Make a Killing,” the heist film “Crime 1201” and the inspirational “I Can Only Imagine 2.”
Watch the whole thing HERE!
Fast reviews for busy people! Watch as I review three movies in less time than it takes to sing “Hm, ooh, yeah-yeah, yeah” Have a look as I race against the clock to tell you about the return of the king in “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert,” the dark comedy “How to Make a Killing” and the horror movie “Diabolic.”
Watch the whole thing HERE!
SYNOPSIS: In “How to Make a Killing,” a new class satire now playing in theatres, a man whose mother was disowned by his wealthy family decides to “prune a few branches of the family tree” and reclaim the family fortune. “Since the day I was born my mother told me we were different. Yes, she had been disowned by her family but someday I would become the sole heir. I just had to wait… for all of them to die.”
CAST: Glen Powell, Margaret Qualley, Jessica Henwick, Bill Camp, Zach Woods, Topher Grace, Ed Harris. Directed by John Patton Ford.
REVIEW: A riff on the coal black 1949 British comedy “Kind Hearts and Coronets,” “How to Make a Killing” is a lighthearted look at revenge and murder.
The thin line between life and death is all that stands between 9-to-5er Becket Redfellow (Glen Powell) and a windfall inheritance. When he was born out of wedlock, his mother was disowned by her obscenely wealthy family. Broke, and wanting to live the “right kind of life” promised by his late mother, he hatches a plan to stage “accidents” to knock off the family members standing between him and the cash. “There were seven of them,” he says. “Seven rich pricks between myself and $28 billion.”
Told mostly in flashback with narration, “How to Make a Killing” is tightly composed. Perhaps too tightly. Swiftly paced, it rips along at top speed, never pausing long enough to allow the impact of the killings to sink in. In keeping with the movie’s pedal to the metal pace, Becket’s fall into murder and mayhem happens in the blink of an eye. As the bodies quickly pile up, the murders feel a little easy, a little too no-muss-no-fuss, to build any palpable tension.
The movie wants the audience to relate to Becket’s tough luck, but his overall demeanor is so stoic it’s hard to root for him, even as an anti-hero. Powell’s megawatt grin conceals Becket’s psychopathy, but the character is too glib to be funny, too offhand to be dramatic.
It’s in that mushy middle that Becket and the film sit. Not funny enough to be a comedy, it’s not quite dark enough to be a full-on drama.
It does comes loaded with ideas about class mobility, moral ambiguity and plays up the lengths Becket will go to gain social status, but the rapid pacing doesn’t provide time for meaningful exploration.
Some of that exploration may have disappeared in the movie’s plot holes. Large enough for Powell to fly the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet he piloted in “Top Gun: Maverick” through, they are black holes that suck logic (particularly surrounding the final killing) into the void.
If you buy a ticket, check your suspension of disbelief at the concession stand.
“How to Make a Killing” has an intriguing premise, some fun performances—mainly Jessica Henwick as Ruth, Becket’s grounded girlfriend, the ever-reliable Bill Camp as a mentor figure and Zach Woods as the irritating cousin Noah—but its ambition, like its main character’s, exceeds its grip.
I join the CTV NewsChannel to talk about the big movies from the weekend, including Edgar Wright’s “The Running Man,” rhe magical thieves of “Now You See Me: Now You Don’t,” the Oscar worthy “Sentimental Value” and the animated “In Your Dreams.”
Watch the whole thing HERE!
SYNOPSIS: Based on the novel “The Running Man” by Stephen King, which was published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, the movie of the same name sees the unemployed Ben Richards (Glen Powell), desperate for cash to save his sick daughter, sign up for a “Squid Game” style show in which contestants must stay alive for 30 days while being pursued by “hunters” hired to kill them.
CAST: Glen Powell, William H. Macy, Lee Pace, Michael Cera, Emilia Jones, Daniel Ezra, Jayme Lawson, Colman Domingo, and Josh Brolin. Directed by Edgar Wright.
REVIEW: A survival thriller that puts a human face on the story’s themes of economic coercion, personal sacrifice and class Inequality, “The Running Man” is slick, high-energy satire with grim messages about media manipulation, exploitation and the chasm between the haves and the have nots.
Set in the near future where the reality show features Runners hunted by Hunters, “The Running Man” sees Ben Richards (Glen Powell), a desperate father convinced by the show’s cartoonishly evil producer Dan Killian (Josh Brolin) to enter the game to win a cash jackpot. “Rules are simple,” says Killian. “Survive thirty days with the entire nation hunting you down and get your family out of slum-side for good.”
Like a bloodthirsty episode of “Survivor,” the chaotic show within the movie is television’s highest rated program, but instead of getting voted off the island, you get voted off the mortal coil. “HUNT. HIM. DOWN!” shouts show host Bobby Thompson (Colman Domingo).
With a mix of paternal love and sheer will, Richards becomes a fan favorite; a viral star turned folk hero.
“The Running Man” begins with a strong premise; a father pushed to extremes to do what’s best for his family. Richards is an everyman—except that most desperate dads don’t have Powell’s charisma, and a six-pack that would make Adonis envious—thrust into a life-or-death situation. The situation is extreme, but the motivation is relatable, grounding the movie in an all-too-real world of an under-employed family unable to afford medical attention.
It’s a potent starting point, a dystopian nightmare with real world resonance. It’s when the movie puts Richards at the end of a gun barrel, on the run for his life, that “The Running Man” loses its grounding by succumbing to bombast. As the title suggests, the film does laps around the movie’s motifs, for the most part preferring to entertain the eye with high octane visuals than engage the brain, before circling back to the sociopolitical issues that inspired the story in the movie’s rushed finale.
It’s frenetic and frantic but lacks the verve that Wright usually brings to his films.
Woven into the film’s fabric are some interesting diversions. As anti-government activist Elton, Michael Cera brings a sense of anarchy and awkwardness that gives “The Running Man” a jolt in the film’s mid-section. It’s an exhilarating segment that provides the mix of comedy and action we expect from Wright’s caffeinated filmmaking.
Less successful is the introduction of one percenter Amelia Williams (Emilia Jones). An avatar of wealth and privilege more than an actual character, she’s a living metaphor of elite detachment, and becomes the blunt instrument Wright uses to hammer home his commentary on the economic divide in the film’s final section.
When Stephen King wrote “The Running Man” in 1982 his musings on corporate control, media manipulation and the economic gap felt dystopian. Times have changed, and now the most upsettingly dystopian thing about the movie might be how it depicts the future popularity of reality television.
SYNOPSIS: In “Twisters,” a stand-alone sequel to the 1996 disaster film “Twister,” Daisy Edgar-Jones plays Kate Cooper, a meteorologist and weather whisperer who retired to the comfort of an office job following a tragic encounter with a tornado in her home state of Oklahoma. Drawn back into the world of storm chasing by the opportunity to test a groundbreaking new tornado tracking system, she returns to the field. “The worse the weather,” says her mother (Maura Tierney), “the happier the girl.” As central Oklahoma is beset by the worst tornado season in years, Kate finds herself torn between an old colleague (Anthony Ramos), a famous social media storm chaser (Glen Powell) and a shady developer (David Born).
CAST: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell, Anthony Ramos, Brandon Perea, Maura Tierney, and Sasha Lane. Directed by Lee Isaac Chung.
REVIEW: The new movie falls somewhere between remake and sequel of the 1996 film, but those expecting a flying cow may be disappointed. The signature image from the original is nowhere to be found, but fans of airborne objects will still find much to enjoy. “Sometimes the old ways are the best ways,” says Tyler (Powell).
Director Lee Isaac Chung captures the adrenaline of storm chasing in frenetic scenes that place the characters in the middle of violent, swirling wind maelstroms. The intensity of those scenes, however, is matched only by the passionate tornado talk. Kate and Tyler enjoy a good weather-related chin wag (although there is no mention of climate change here), but the meteorologicalese tends to slow down the film’s forward momentum.
In other words, when the titular tornados are in motion, the movie is exciting. When they’re being talked about, less so.
The people doing most of the talking, Powell, Edgar-Jones and Ramos, aren’t just props with wind-blown hair. Each are given an obstacle to overcome, whether it is the weight of first impressions, the impact of trauma or the guilt that comes with selling out one’s principles. The character arcs, like Powell’s shift from reckless cowboy to cowboy scientist, a charismatic turn that gives the tornados a run for the movie’s best special effect, gives “Twisters” the opportunity for meaningful exchanges between the characters.
It’s also the rare action/disaster flick, that values brains over brawn in almost every sticky situation the characters find themselves in.
For all the character work, “Twisters” misses an opportunity with the expected, and more than hinted at, romance between Kate and Tyler. As it is their attraction that has all the heat of an Oklahoma winter’s night.
“Twisters” may not have the consistent, blustery excitement of the original, but it does deliver satisfying wet ‘n wild summer blockbuster action.
A very unusual thing happened when I saw Richard Linklater’s “Hit Man” at last year’s TIFF. After the movie’s best and funniest scene, one that shows the comedic chops and chemistry of leads Glen Powell and Adria Arjona, the audience burst into applause. It was a spontaneous, organic moment, the kind usually reserved for comedy clubs, not sold-out festival screenings.
Powell, who also wrote the script, plays Gary, a seemingly mild-mannered psychology and philosophy professor at the University of New Orleans. When he isn’t lecturing to bored students about breaking out of their comfort zones, he leads a quiet life, tending to his pet birds and two cats, Id and Ego.
On the side he works with local law enforcement as a sound technician, secretly recording undercover officer Jasper (Austin Amelio) as he entraps people who want to hire him to kill a spouse or a business partner.
When Jasper is suspended for bad behavior, Gary subs in.
Turns out, he’s a natural, and more importantly, it gives him an adrenaline rush he hasn’t felt for many years. With Jasper out of the picture, Gary dives in, wearing disguises to create a new hitman character for every meeting.
“I realized not everyone fantasized about the same hit man,” he says. “Every sting operation was a performance. And each arrest was like a standing ovation.”
When he meets Madison (Adria Arjona), a distressed wife who wants him to kill her husband, he immediately falls for her. In their meeting he gets her to stop talking before she incriminates herself, and soon, they begin dating. Trouble is, she knows him as self-assured badass Ron, not as the affable Gary.
Complications ensue, culminating in the above-mentioned applause-worthy scene, a mix of slapstick and the pure chemistry between Powell and Arjona, where they know the police are recording them, but continue their conversation as though they don’t.
Very loosely based on the true story of Gary Johnson, as written by Skip Hollandsworth in “Texas Monthly,” “Hit Man” is a rom com with some thrilling twists. Light and frothy, it’s anchored by a smart script that acts as a showcase for the lead performances.
Powell pulls off a full-on leading man turn as a guy who embodies an ideal by creating a role-playing fantasy of what a hit man would be like, based on the wants and needs of the client. It gives him a chance to show his versatility and step away from the bland leading man roles that have marked some of his most popular work to date.
“Hit Man” makes the most of that performance. As the disguises get nuttier and nuttier, and the plot more pretzel-shaped, director Richard Linklater finds a balance between Powell’s showcase work, the script’s big laughs and the story’s inherent tension. It could have gone south very easily, but Linklater pulls off a bit of a magic trick and keeps it hilariously humming along on all cylinders.
Richard joins CTV NewsChannel anchor Marcia MacMillan to talk about the highway to the danger zone and Tom Cruise in “Top Gun: Maverick.”
Watch the whole thing HERE!
It’s been thirty-six years, but movie goers can once again ride into the danger zone.
Kind of.
Hotheaded test pilot Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Tom Cruise) returns to the screen and sky in the high-flying sequel “Top Gun: Maverick,” which, despite the main character’s feats of daring do, plays it mostly by-the-book.
When we first get reacquainted with Captain Maverick, he’s still the hotshot, risky pilot we remember from the first film. His cocky attitude and bad boy behavior has kept him from being promoted. “I’m where I belong,” he says when asked why he’s not an Admiral after decades of distinguished service. He’s popular with his peers but not with the brass, save for his old friend and guardian angel, Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer in an extended cameo).
“Your reputation precedes you,” says Vice Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson (Jon Hamm). “That’s not a compliment.”
Called back to Top Gun, the United States Navy training program where he learned fighter and strike tactics and technique, Maverick is presented with a last chance for glory. “You fly for Top Gun or you don’t ever fly for the Navy again.”
Cyclone is obviously disdainful of the arrogant Maverick, but acknowledges he is the best person to train twelve of the brightest and best recent Top Gun graduates for a dangerous mission to locate and destroy an underground uranium enrichment site.
For Maverick, the job comes with baggage. It places him in the vicinity of on-again, off-again girlfriend Penny (Jennifer Connelly), a new character, referenced in the first film as the daughter of an admiral. Most dramatically, one of his students is Lieutenant Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (Miles Teller), the son of Maverick’s late best friend, “Goose,” played by Anthony Edwards in the first film. Rooster holds Maverick responsible for his father’s death and is resistant to Maverick’s training. “My dad believed in you,” he says. “I’m not going to make the same mistake.”
Of the twelve recruits, half will make the cut, one will be the leader, if Maverick can teach them the precision and “Don’t think, just do” attitude needed to come home alive.
“Top Gun: Maverick” screenwriters Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer and Christopher McQuarrie keep the story simple; a splash of romance, a dash of remorse, some shirtless volleyball and a mountain of eye-popping aerial action. It’s a recipe that echoes the events of the first film to the point of déjà vu. Still, as an exercise in nostalgia, complete with callbacks to the original, and an emotional appearance by Kilmer, “Maverick” works because it blends old and new in a crowd-pleasing way. Unlike other recent 1980s and 1990s reboots, it salutes the original in tribute. Loud and proud, it wears its superficiality on its sleeve in an old fashioned, last century style that is unabashed fan service.
But what really sets the new and old films apart is Cruise. He was a movie star then, and he’s a movie star now, but with age, the stakes for his character are higher. Maverick has a lot to prove, regrets to be dealt with and while the actor doesn’t appear to have aged at all, that trademarked Tom Cruise Run can’t be as easy as it once was. Maverick is a still a hotshot, but here the character is tempered by the sins of the past and a real concern for the future. Cruise’s work shaves some of the hypermasculine edges off Maverick to reveal a more human and humane character than the first time around. It centers the movie with some earthbound emotion to counter the sky-high action.
“Top Gun: Maverick” is a sequel that plays it safe with the story, but lets it rip in the blockbuster action sequences, giving the audience the expected need for speed.
